Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

YOU GO, DERICK! Can't think of anything to add to that. One of my best friends is a lesbian. She didn't pick that any more than she picked her height, or the color of her eyes.

On another note, did any of you catch the AP article in the newspaper about the high school in Georgia that is FINALLY having a single prom for both it's black and white students? And I thought Idaho was backwards. Jodi

David, in one post you have managed to hit nearly every topic that divides people today, and did so in a way that that practically cries out for further discussion!

Long live this thread! On the other hand, some of these topics surely deserve their own thread - the length of the responses so far are surely proof of that and they are bound to get longer. I propose chopping these discussions in to individual threads to make it easier to consider them.

When my mind stops reeling from some of what has been said here, I will break out a couple of them myself. AND, you can be sure my kids will be reading it - they need to hear this stuff. Indeed, I would hope that all will feel compelled to contribute to the discussion, by the nature of the diviseness of the topics at and, and the need for a full public airing of opinion on a regular basis.

hurrah for derick. both my husband's and my family have had homosexuals in every generation on our mothers' sides (the men in my family, the women in his). there is no question in our minds that this is a genetic trait. because we have multiple generations, every straight person in our families has had a gay brother or sister, aunt or uncle, or cousin. to us it seems pretty normal. uncle joe always brings his "friend" harry to thanksgiving. aunt sue and her "friend" jean, who happen to live together, are always home for christmas. my mother's best friend is a lesbian. i've had tons of lesbian friends.

the only thing that isn't normal to us is the horrendously unjust way this society treats gay people.

what is really sad is our families have many times been the only holiday haven available for numerous gay men and women who have been excommunicated from their own families for the heinous crime of just being who they are.

believe me, these poor people would make themselves straight in a heartbeat, if only it were possible... they wish desperately that they could be like everybody else.

I agree with Ib that homosexuality is inherently morally wrong. I base that on the Judeo-Christian roots of the founding of this country, and the accepted norms of societal behaviour within that group. I also agree that government should take no steps to promote or recognize the practice.

On the other hand, there should be no government persecution or "singling-out, of homosexuals.

A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young. There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance. Therefore, I think it is still within the best interests of Society to withold that complete acceptance.

"A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young. There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance."

I actually agree with this, Jolly. I know people in both categories. What I don't understand, is how you can call someone "morally wrong", who has obviously been born to be nothing else. I am guessing this comes from a religious upbringing, and honestly, this type of thinking is part of the reason I am NOT religious. What, exactly, is morally wrong about loving another person, and wanting to be with him or her for the rest of your life? I can understand peoples "distaste" and certain activities associated with being homosexual. But I am sure that there are things that some heterosexual couples do that you or I might find distasteful as well. Jodi

Yes, in my case religion and personal belief systems do color my perception of the World. but then, I think that is true for everyone.

As an 18 year old, back when I had all the answers, I would have said that Biblically it was wrong and probably deserved stoning. The problem with getting older, and seeing things in my profession that would make your head spin, tends to temper extremism, somewhat. Also, the juxtaposition of Faith, Justice and the concepts of Sin.

Is being a practicing homosexual a sin? Biblically, there is no doubt, yes it is. And with the coming of The White Throne Judgement, that sin will be judged, along with many others. Where does it rank on the scale? Above gluttony? Below blasphemy? I have no clue, and I suspect no one else does either. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Are some people born homosexual? I don't have a definitive medical study I can quote for you. Independent, and non-biased studies have been contradictory. My gut feeling is that it is probable. Therefore, one must abstain from the practice of homosexuality, in order to remain free from the sin.

I think what bothers me the most is the promulagation of the thought that homosexuality is normal behavior. To me, what is inherently "wrong", cannot be normalized. That gay couples should have the same benefits as married heterosexual couple, seems to legitimize the behavior. Also, as I stated before, I think some people could be either homosexual or heterosexual, and the normalization of the behavior by society at large and by the government, only legitimizes and encourages a lifestyle that otherwise would not be followed.

To address the point about two people living together: if a homosexual couple wants to live together and maintain a monogamous relationship, that is their business. What happens between two consenting adults, in the privacy of one's home, is none of my business. The problem comes when the gay couple wants all of the rights and privledges of the heterosexual couple, under law. A monogamous heterosexual couple has been decided upon by our society to be the most stable family unit and one that should be encouraged. The society shall ultimately determine what other alliances between people will constitute families, and which ones will be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged. As has been stated in another thread, the next civil war in this country will not be about slavery and state's rights, but about the personal rights of the individual.

Derick
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York

Jolly,

The accepted norms of societal behavior within a group is hardly a model on which to base ones beliefs. In an earlier post you mentioned several accepted societal behaviors that you dislike:

Quote:

First, the pill. The coming of a reliable, cheap method of birth control gave women complete control of the sexual process and the procreation of the species. For the first time, families could reliably control timing and spacing of children. This in turn led to more women in the workforce and the advent of the two-paycheck family. Americans, being the spoiled brats we are, wanted bigger homes with two car garages and nice cars to fill those spaces. We wanted every latest bauble.

You dislike these societal norms, but embrace societal norms when it comes to homosexuality? You are not being consistent.

You also make the following statement:

Quote:

A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young.

Can you tell me how either a lifestyle 'choice' or a medical condition applies to someone who would be gay no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to? If someone will be gay no matter what, then where's the choice? Where's the medical condition?

Your last statement:

Quote:

There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance. Therefore, I think it is still within the best interests of Society to withold that complete acceptance.

Do you really believe this? People will do whatever they are most inclined to do no matter what pressure society puts on them. We are SO far off from 'complete acceptance' it isn't funny. But even if one could wave a magic wand and suddenly society blesses homosexuality, how many of those 'on the fence' would fall into the 'gay' yard who would have otherwise fallen into the 'straight' yard? Not many. And, by the way, if they didn't like the yard they fell into, what's to stop them from climbing the fence to live on the other side?

When it is within one's ability to make a choice, then acceptance will lead to more people making that choice. But when it is not a choice, as 99.9% of psychologists will tell you, acceptance is not going to lead more people into becoming 'one'.

I don't care how socially acceptable it is to like brussel sprouts, be attracted to men, or help my wife pick out wallpaper. I'm not doing any of those things. But if you like all three, let me give you my phone number so you can help my wife with the wallpaper.

Derick

_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Before I could answer jolly did a better job of saying what I feel than I could.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

Derick

Corinthians 11.2,10 explains about the covering of the head in church. My version of the bible says nothing about stoning to death. I may have missed it, could you refer me to the Chapter and Verse that says this.

I said in my first post that every human has the propensity to commit an immoral act. This includes murder, adultery, homophobia, etc. Our God given free will lets us chose whether we commit these acts. Having the propensity for homophobia is not a choice, but committing the act is.

You are confusing two arguments. In one, an observation is made about children and the effect upon them by not having a parent, specifically a mother, at home raising the child. In the other, we are talking about societal acceptance of homosexuality and the role this has in inducing behavior that is otherwise considered taboo.

You ask about whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition? Wish I had a definitive answer for you, I don't. It might be both, or either. The independent study to answer all questions once and forever has not been done. There are multiple theories about upbringing, chromosomal abnormalities, brain developmental experiments, MRI studies, gender ID crisis - I could name more. The bottom line, is that with my belief system the practice of homosexuality is wrong and constitutes a sin. Period.

This does not mean that homosexuals are to be publicly shunned, although I do denounce that aspect of their behavior. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The argument I was making is that the practice should not be glorified nor invested with acceptance by the government.

Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?

Originally posted by Jolly:Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?[/b]

Originally posted by Jolly: Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?[/b]

Yes.

Although pique's "damned straight[/b]" is a much wittier answer than mine!

As justification, I would give you the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, which is what governs this nation, not 2 or 3 verses from one religion's sacred books. (To mix two threads in one!)

Derick
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York

Jolly,

You said:

Quote:

Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?

In response...

Marriage:Yes, from a legal standpoint. Churches are under no obligation to recognize such a marriage.

Adoption:Perhaps. I think the most stable environment for a child is one with a mother and father; not one with two mothers or two fathers. However, just because a couple is heterosexual does not mean they will be better parent's or create a more stable environment than will two gay parents. Is a child better off with two, very loving, happy, gay parents who get along, or with a straight couple that don't like each other and fight like cats and dogs?

Property division, and other familial legal actions:

Absolutely. Look if two people make a life together, buy a house, furniture, food, etc... what right does the family have to step in between this. In the case of the death of one partner, should not the property be passed on to the other partner? How would you feel if, God forbid, your wife died and her family wanted half of your house?

I'll email you my phone number. There's another marathon wall-paper search and seek mission next Saturday. I'll stay home and make the brussel sprouts.

Derick

_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Before I could answer jolly did a better job of saying what I feel than I could.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

Derick

Corinthians 11.2,10 explains about the covering of the head in church. My version of the bible says nothing about stoning to death. I may have missed it, could you refer me to the Chapter and Verse that says this.[/b]

The problem with taking a verse from the Bible and simply applying it as a moral standard today as it is written, is that one ends up with ludicrous thinking, like the following. This is obviously social satire, but like any satire, it shows the inherent ridiculousness of taking, say,Leviticus 18.22 & 20.13 as word for word from the mouth of God, Him/Herself!

This has been around the Net a while, so if you have seen it before, feel free to go right past it.----------------Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

As for the wallpaper - women physiologically have much better color vision than males. Have your wife pick out a major feature in her room she wants to coordinate; a sofa, or drapes, perhaps. Most decorator or P/P shops will let you check out two or three wallpaper books from the shop. Match a dominant color in the paper to the furniture or desired home item. Or use a coordinating color to complement the sofa, etc. And don't worry so much about taste, it will be out of style long before it wears out!

Derick
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York

lb,

I linked historical records of the time with sections of the bible to conclude that women who pray without covering their heads should be stoned.

1 Corinthians 11

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.

In those days, women with shaved heads were adulters and were stoned to death. So from "it is just as though her head were shaved", I conclude that such a women be stoned.

But if I'm making too big a leap, there are a few other quotes from the bible that don't require any 'leaping'.

Here's a few every man should remind his wife of:

Corinthians 11:3-AV But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Corinthians 14:34-AV Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

[Deuteronomy 22:23-24] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The bible also forbids, jewelry, make-up, high-heels, tatoos, the list goes on and on.

The Muslim extremists would be considered tame by comparison if Christians followed the bible to the letter. Maybe they are right, we are infidels and should be sent to our death. After all, we pick and choose what we want to follow.

If homosexuality is even remotely suggested, a good Christians' eyes will pop wide open taking in every word. And Jerry Falwell with his Rolex and that blonde/purple/pink woman with tons of make-up (with the Boesendorfer, art-case piano in the background) can tell us how much of a sin it is.

I think they should pay a little more attention to their own sins before condemning someone else.

Derick

_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

[/b]

I kinda figured that is where it came from.

Two verses in Leviticus, offered as ample reason - or perhaps a mandate - to condemn a huge group of people to a life of scorn and shame for something with which they had little or nothing to do. Two verses from the same Old Testament as so many other admonitions that are used as weapons to divide. The same Old Testament that is filled with other admonitions that are freely ignored.

Those of you who have heard me play piano know that I play mostly hymns. These are Baptist hymns, folks - the religion of my youth. The religion that no longer has any place for me, if indeed it ever did. The selective use of passages from the Old Testament which have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ - and indeed run contrary to it - drove me away.

Breaking your neighbor's furniture does not make your furniture look any better. Using sacred text as justification for breaking it makes your own furniture look worse in the process.

You kind of cut and snipped my post. That is like selecting passages from the bible.

I said that this is the Bibles version of it. I also said that Jolly expressed my feelings better than I could.

I expressed my opinion, you have the right to express yours. I did not in any way attack anyone for there opinion,thats kind of like breaking your neighbors furniture aint it. I also do not condemn anyone for their lifestyle, that is not for me to do.

I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.

I'm glad to see that this was your interpretation and it really wasn't what was actually said in the bible.

You said "I think they should pay a little more attention to their own sins before condemning someone else."

I have not condemned anyone. I stated my opinion on legitimizing homosexuality. You have the right to express yours as well. I have not attacked anyone for their opinion, I do not see why you have to attack other opinions to give yours credibility. As Steve said in his post, “ break your neighbors furniture to make yours look better”

I did not cloud this thread with feminism either. This thread is long enough, if you want to discuss feminism, you should start another thread

You have posted some very funny stuff here George. I really have to hand it to you. Of course, these folks bring it on themselves when the use the Old Testament and Leviticus in particular to make their point. Much that is contained therein can only accurately be described as archaic. That being said, I can say that, for my part, I find homosexuality to be repulsive but that, in and of itself, is not enough to justify proscribing their lifestyle. There may be any number of things about my neighbor's life style that I may find repulsive (and they, mine) but as long as they do not cause harm (defined very narrowly) to society in general I am bound by the rules of civil society to tolerate their behavior.

George mentions equal protection and I have to agree that gay people should enjoy the same benefits under the 14th Amendment as all other Americans. However, it seems to me that some of the more activist members of the gay community are asking for a kind of "enhanced" protection. In other words, they seem to believe that they should be protected from all sorts of criticism or that people whose beliefs do not countenance homosexuality should, in some way, be legally censured. There are no other groups or individuals who enjoy such protection and it should not be extended to any particular group or individual. Certainly, if harm should come to them from others they should receive the same legal protections as anyone. However, there are people whose only "crime" is an outspoken belief that homosexuality is wrong and they should be entitled to their beliefs. Just as members of the gay community are entitled to their outspoken belief that such people are backward and wrong.

There has been much made of the murder of Matthew Shepard as far as a justification for hate crimes legislation. However, the two individuals who murdered Matthew Shepard were not some sort religious fanatics but lowlife scum. They have no more to do with religion than Charles Manson. What they did was murder and there are already laws against that. It seems that, in general, anything that is covered by hate crimes legislation that is not already outside the law amounts to legislating people's beliefs and that should not be tolerated in civil society.

Does equal protection extend to the realm of civil unions? It might. I can see there being a case to be made for the fact that people entering freely into a relationship are not accorded the same types of legal and financial benefits of ordinary married couples. I see no harm done to society in general in allowing gay people to enter into the same sorts of civil contracts as married people and enjoying the same benefits vs-a-vis the state. It is not as if some religious imprimatur is being affixed although, if it is allowed within the beliefs of a particular religion, there is no reason why that would be impossible.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Originally posted by lb:I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.

lb[/b]

This, of course, is the crux of the problem. When people think "gay" they think "sex activites" and that alone. The problem with this is that being gay is far more than what one does with one's body with another human being.

For a heterosexual man/woman, they find completeness as human beings with a member of the opposite gender. They find another human being with whom they can be soulmates, with whom they can speak their innermost thoughts and fears and doubts, they find a human being who they wish to share their life with, make plans with, grow old with. They are able to develop an intimate partnership -- mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically -- with a member of the opposite gender that they cannot find with a member of their own. In short, the heterosexual man is made whole by his love for a woman and the heterosexual woman is made whole by her love for a man. This is what it means for a man and woman to be in love and we all know this.

When one sees a man and woman together in a life partnership no one thinks immediately of what they do in bed, or how they express their intimacy physically. No, they consider how the two of them struggle through life together, how they laugh together, cry together fight together and can be so intimately hurt by each other because they know each other so well. How they raise children together, share each other's interests. In short, how they love each other in a complete way. A straight man or woman cannot not find such fulfillment for who they are or for their humanness with a member of their own gender.

And yet, when a man is gay or a woman lesbian, the focus is soley on the sexual activites of these people. Dismissive comments such as we ave already seen on this thread are made "I don't care what they do in bed within the privacy of their own home" as if this is the totality of their partnership. But sexual expression is not the point.

The point is that gay men and lesbians cannot find fulfillment as human beings with a member of the opposite gender any more than a straight person could find it with a member of the same gender. The point is not about who arouses gay men and lesbians sexually. The point is who they need to have to complete their lives. Who are they drawn to to express their love -- in all of its forms, of which sex is simply an expression, not a basis.

Gay men and lesbians have long argued that their search for fulfillment of themselves with a life partner is the same as the straight person's search and their satisfaction when they find that one person is the same as a straight person's. And this is true.

When love is talked about between a husband and wife, it is not defined as sex. When love is talked about between two male life partners it is only defined as sex.

This is all gays and lesbians are really arguing for....recognition that they too have a right to be happy and to be accepted and to be condoned in their fulfillment with another human being in the same way that straight people are happy, accepted and condoned in their fulfillment with another human being.

Can any of us really condemn anyone for wanting to love and be loved? For wanting to be fulfilled as a human being and for fulfilling someone else as a human being? For seeking a partner and for seeking completeness in life? Or for being someone else's partner and giving that person completeness?

When we define a human being's drive to love and be loved simply in terms of a certain physical expression of that love, we deny the very humanity of that person. To deny their humanity is to deny the glory of the God who created them -- whether or not He/She created them gay, straight or otherwise -- the God who loves each of us so fully, so completely, so intimately because we are each His/Her creation.

Okay, I'm old and don't keep up on the language as much as I used to. I remember when gay meant light-hearted, happy, etc. Then, it was morphed into meaning homosexual, in a nice way, as opposed to queer, which morphed earlier to mean homosexual in a derogatory way. Now, I find out that it's morphed again to mean a male[/b] homosexual. All these constantly changing euphemisms are too much for a sane person to worry about. Plus, any labels are divisive.[/b]

Derick
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York

lb,

I rambled in my post and went from addressing you to talking about Jerry Falwell. So it was not my intention to imply that you were condemning anyone, rather Jerry Falwell, and others like him, are the ones that condemn.

The quotations I extracted from the bible were not meant to open up the feminism issue, they were merely meant to point out how utterly ridiculous many of the things said in the bible are.

I have a tattoo, I trim my beard, I get a haircut, I wear a gold chain (with a religious medal on it) a watch and a wedding ring. All of those things are forbidden in the bible. Yet people who quote the bible regarding homosexuality conveniently skip over those things that they do that are forbidden in the bible; shaving, wearing jewelry, getting a haircut, etc...

Derick

_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Originally posted by JBryan: However, it seems to me that some of the more activist members of the gay community are asking for a kind of "enhanced" protection. In other words, they seem to believe that they should be protected from all sorts of criticism or that people whose beliefs do not countenance homosexuality should, in some way, be legally censured. There are no other groups or individuals who enjoy such protection and it should not be extended to any particular group or individual. Certainly, if harm should come to them from others they should receive the same legal protections as anyone. However, there are people whose only "crime" is an outspoken belief that homosexuality is wrong and they should be entitled to their beliefs. Just as members of the gay community are entitled to their outspoken belief that such people are backward and wrong. [/b]

I agree with you completely on this. No, gays should not have special rights and yes, they should have the same rights.

Most legislation that is proposed that is considered "pro-gay" is very simple. It simply says that one cannot be discrimated against because of sexual orientation. This type of legislation is then attacked as giving gays special rights. However....

Gays throughout this society are routinely fired frorm jobs simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that gays ask for legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else.

Gays throughout this society are denied the ability to rent or buy homes or are evicted from their homes simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who are in lifetime partnerships are often told they are not a "relative" of someone seriously ill or dying in a hospital and they are not allowed to visit or be with the one they have given their life to in a time of crisis. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays too often find that upon the death of their life partner, they have no immediate right to inheritance or to determine what happens to that person's estate or how that person is to be memorialized and interred. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who have children love them as dearly as any straight parent. They need them in their lives as much as straight parents. And their children need the love and guidance of their gay parents as much as chidlren need the love and guidance of their straight parents. And yet, too often we read of a gay parent being denied custody or visitiation or any of the other rights a parent would have simply because they are gay. How wrenching to both the parent and the children this is! Should we be surprised then that gays seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

The Federal government and state governments have many statutes which treat heterosexual life partners in specific ways -- and often extend these benefits to common law marriages. Gays are simply saying that their life partnerships are as legally valid as any other life partnership and they seek to have them treated as such.

This is the type of thing that is happening all over the place in this society and gays are simply seeking to have legislation passed to ensure they are treated like all others in the same situation. The majority of gays and lesbians are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment.

The actions of the society is the cause for gays seeking to be specifically identified in anti-discrimination legislation. If they were routinely given equal treatment in such areas as I have outlined above, there would be no need for such legislation.

When the Supreme Court of Vermont declared the states marriage laws as unconstitutional under the State's equal protection clauses, gays did not demand a change in the definition of marriage in Vermont. They were well satisfied with establishing a separate designation of civil unions for those outside of a state-defined marriage.

I do not believe the definition of marriage need be changed. But I believe all committed partnerships should be treated the same legally.

No, there should be no special treatment of gays. But if we need legislation to keep discrimination from occuring, then we need legislation.

I disagree with much of the radical gay agenda. I do not believe elementary students need be taught that a gay life partnership is"normal" since it clearly is outside of the norm. But I see no problem in children being taught that two people who love each other, are committed to each other and who bind their lives together are to be respected for the commitment they have made.

I do not believe there should be special gay oriented educational materials forced upon all children any more than there should be special religious or poltiical oriented materials forced upoin children. But I do believe such information should be made available -- be it on sexual orientation, religious viewpoints, political viewpoints or whatever -- to those children seeking it when it is age appropriate.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have "gay" clubs. But I do believe that if they are going to have clubs based on common interests of the members, and if gay teenagers want to band together in such a club and meet the requirements of all other clubs, they should be allowed.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have dances and proms and similar social events. But I do believe that if they are held and the kids can bring dates of their own choice, they should be allowed to bring the date of their choice -- be that person the same gender or a different gender

As far as hate crimes are concerned, I agree with you except.....

We have court decisions that allow for more severe penalties when there are "special circumstances." Indeed, for the death penalty to be applied, special circumstances must be shown. Crimes stemming from hate are an affront and an attack on the very freedom we hold dear in this country. They are an attack on our most basic values of equality. Because they attack the core of our political values, I have no trouble adding "hate as a motivation" as a special circumstance to allow for a more severe punishment. But I do not single out hate crimes against gays for this. I single out simply hate -- against anyone or any lifestyle or any belief system as a special circumstance.

There are radical gays who seek more than this and I disagree with them. I do not think they have any special rights. In the same way I do not think ethnic groups should have any special rights nor do I believe any group bound by common beliefs should have any special rights.

Perhap, one of these days, we as a society will actually begin to see people as people and will treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve simply as human beings and will no longer need laws to ensure equal treatment of all under the law. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. And so, as a freedom loving people, we need laws to enforce our most basic political values against those who would deny these political values.

I can't really take issue with anything you have said here. We may disagree as to degree but on substance we are probably closer than either of us would have expected. I am opposed to enacting laws creating a new class or protected group as I believe existing law should apply to all with regard to discrimination or other such abuses. However, it is possible that there are some areas that are not adequately covered by existing law and I would not be opposed to addressing any such narrowly defined areas with legislation.

As far as hate crimes, if you are suggesting that hate as a motivation be introduced as an aggravating factor in sentencing, I am not opposed to that. I am frightened by proposed legislation that seems aimed at making the expression of an offensive point of view by itself a crime or used to magnify an otherwise mudane offense into a capital crime. I can see where abuses could result.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.